[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[Nigel]
A handful of masochists lost matches by slavishly complying with the 
old regulation.

[Tim West-Meads]
It never happened.  Some idiots erroneously assumed that the previous
EBU regulation was incompatible with the laws and precluded the use of
judgement.  Those same idiots never bothered to take a test case to
the EBU L&E.  If they lost matches as a result the may bemoan the
lack of clarity in the way the regs were presented but *they* must
take responsibility for interpreting those regs in the way that they
did.

[Brian Meadows]
Hmm. Well I can tell you that in the EBU's "Rule of 19" days, there 
was at least one 'A' list EBU TD who insisted that the Ro19 applied 
with mathematical precision, pointed me at the regulation in the 
Yellow Book, and told me I could appeal but I'd be wasting my time, 
and likely my money.

The hand in question was a Precision 1D opener on a good 4333 11 
count. I remember that because our opponents (teams) seemed to be able 
to open it 1NT with impunity.

And no, I didn't appeal it, let alone take it to the L&EC - but if 
lack of money (the appeal fee in those days represented a significant 
amount of cash to me) and experience equals idiocy, then I guess I 
plead guilty.

{nige2]
I might resent Tim again branding me a "liar and and idiot", were I 
not in such good company.

David Burn is another of Tim's "idiots" who interpreted the old 
regulation to mean what it said.

For several years, the matter was exhaustively discussed on RGB and 
BLML by Grattan and others. Eventually I sent a letter, summarising 
some of the arguments, to the EBU L&E committee.

The good news is that, a few years years later, the committee amended 
the Orange book.

The bad news is that, instead of scrapping relevant regulations, they 
made them more complex and subjective.